I also said that about the muskets, being snarky-- and I think you are missing the point. Society has changed and we have altered and amended the constitution to reflect those changes. We no longer have slavery. Women can vote. And hardly anyone has to hunt their food or defend their little home on the prairie against the "savages". We have a police force, telephones, and machine guns instead of single shot muskets.
I know, I have said as much in different words. I was specifically arguing that we have the ability to use current views to extrapolate rights which were not explicitly provided for. That is fine, the ability to do that was built into the constitution. As to the sentence that I highlighted...It doesn't matter that we no longer need to hunt for our food, some people still like to do so. As for the "savages" do we not still have the right to defend our home and family from criminals who may intend to rape or murder us? I know...we are supposed to call 911 because when seconds count, a cop is mere minutes away.
Should we just run and let them victimize us? I'm not saying that I would just blow away the first person who breaks into my house, no, but I WILL have a loaded gun in my hand just in case he/she can't be reasoned with.
So, why the resistance to altering the constitution to say that private citizens can't have certain weapons, and can't have more than a certain amount of ammo? And that you can't keep a bunch of loaded guns in your house? And that you should be properly trained and licensed to legally own one at all? What could possibly be wrong with that in a sane world?
I specifically outlined where I would personally draw the line. I have no problem with limiting the average person's access to certain types weapons. But I don't see a problem if someone wants to keep loaded guns in their house. I mean, how you going to enforce that law anyway?
What real difference does it make if they have 100 rounds of ammo or 100,000?
As far as being properly trained and licensed, 100% agree.
You don't need high powered weaponry to hunt, because the deer don't shoot back.
I don't hunt but if I did, I would be a bow hunter. But it's irrelevant because no one "needs" to hunt, period. However, you don't want religious nut jobs telling you what you can and can't do with your own vagina...why would expect hunters to accept liberal tree hugging environmentalists telling them what they can or cannot eat or where they shall obtain their food of choice?
If you want to shoot at targets, go to a range, get the gun there, shoot at the target and go home. That's what they do in Canada and Japan. And they aren't burying children every few weeks from gun violence.
Why do you want to take away my constitutional rights? I don't give a fuck how they do it in Canada or Japan.
I saw a video of a two year old, in China, that wandered out into the road and got hit by a truck. It was a busy alley way lined with little shops on either side. The truck kept driving and the busy people living their busy lives kept walking. You could still see the little child squirming and trying to move but nobody stopped to help. A little while later another truck slowly ran over the child, stopped with a tire on top of the child's body then slowly rolled on down the road. The child was still alive after this. I think it was almost an hour before the mother finally came onto the scene and frantically scooped her child up. Still alive after being hit by one truck and ran over by another the child suffered alone on a busy street for over an hour before she was taken to a hospital where she finally died.
Children and adults alike are buried everyday in China as a result of hit and run. There are too many people who are too busy to be bothered to stop for pedestrians who have been hit by vehicles.
The problem is not congestion or cars, the problem is the attitude. The lack of compassion for their fellow man. In America, the problem is not the guns...it is the attitude, the lack of compassion for our fellow man. Banning guns in America wont change our attitude.
If you think that X amount of handguns and XXX amount of ammo will defend you against the US government, you are wrong. You also need a few nuclear warheads, some cruise missiles, some attack helicopters, some nuclear subs, some fighter planes, some drones, some aircraft carriers and the trained people to operate all of that. Basically, you'd have to be Israel. Or China.
This line of argument is way too complex and nuanced for me to delve into at this time. Let's just say that I agree that protection from a tyrannical government is not as simple as everyone owning a gun.
So, people who want hundreds of guns are just paranoid freaks, because there is no way that they can fight the US government militarily. Or they are dangerous terrorists who should be under constant surveillance. And people will keep getting shot until we come to our senses and wake up to the fact that it ain't 1773. Tell that to the gun lobby.
Nice sound bite. But it's a false dilemma.
BTW on the abortion topic: the founders were well aware of abortion and decided, wisely, to leave such issues up to the women themselves....
How do you know for a fact that was their reasoning for not mentioning abortion? I wanna see your tea leaves. I mean, they didn't think women were wise enough to cast a vote. What makes you think they thought women were wise enough to choose between life and death?
Don't get me wrong...I'm all for adding personal liberty and amending the constitution to INCREASE our rights. I just don't think it's a good idea to start amending the constitution to REMOVE our rights.